[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Aug 19 03:54:32 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: socat


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-08-18 23:44 EST -------
So all of the problems I see arise from those six executable bits of
documentation.  A quick chmod should fix them up.

* source files match upstream:
   84b709de13e236198a4606fb4b80e123  socat-1.5.0.0.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires are sane:
   socat = 1.5.0.0-1.fc6
  =
   /bin/bash
X   /bin/sh
   libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
   libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
   libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
   libssl.so.6()(64bit)
   libutil.so.1()(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
X file permissions are appropriate (executable documentation)
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list